[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#410224: marked as done (give the user the ability to answer conffile prompts during installation)

Your message dated Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:49:56 +0100
with message-id <20070208174955.GT17448@kheops.homeunix.org>
and subject line Bug#410224: give the user the ability to answer conffile prompts during installation
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
package:debian-installer
severity:wishlist

conffile prompts should not happen during installation (unless of course the admin uses a vt to edit files manually), but sometimes they do due to bugs in packages or other issues. 

just freezing with the conffile prompt on another vt and worse no way to answer it is not good behaviour when they do.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Quoting peter green (plugwash@P10Link.net):
> package:debian-installer
> severity:wishlist
> 
> conffile prompts should not happen during installation (unless of course the admin uses a vt to edit files manually), but sometimes they do due to bugs in packages or other issues. 
> 
> just freezing with the conffile prompt on another vt and worse no way to answer it is not good behaviour when they do.

It is pretty hard to consider this something that D-I developers can
do anything about.

As you mention yourself, the situation you described should *not*
happen during a regular install. It can happen if a given package
modifies conffiles from another package and does not do it The Right
Way (see Policy 10.7.4).

In such the *that* package is RC-buggy and should not exist in the
archive (at least in testing).

Circumventing RC errors in some packages with hacks does not seem the
way to go.

--

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: